Hard News: Citizens
144 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
__You were being ironic, some people aren't...__
There's a cheery bunch of folks:
Oh, you clearly missed the Herald's 'Your Views' around the time of the South Auckland killings. That got really mediaeval, really quickly.
My producer was flicking through it and made a crack about sharia law. And the next page he clicked actually had someone proposing that thieves should have their hands cut off ...
The latent violence amongst upstanding citizens can be quite a thing to behold.
-
some cushy cell with underfloor heating and widescreen television.
I wish some of these people would go see a prison & get some reality check that they aren't holiday camps.
BTW - I worked for Corrections for years & the underfloor heating (pretty much hot water pipes sunk in concrete for the most part) is standard in correctional facilities - crims make weapons out of any fittings they can get their hands on.
-
I should be working. Instead I'm fixing your links:
Whack a poll
How about whack the alleged editor of the Herald until a couple of working neurons shake loose?
-
I wish some of these people would go see a prison & get some reality check that they aren't holiday camps.
I have simple desires. I wish every time there was a panel debate about a proposed policy like this they'd replace the guy from Sensible Sentencing with someone who's worked in Corrections.
-
I have simple desires. I wish every time there was a panel debate about a proposed policy like this they'd replace the guy from Sensible Sentencing with someone who's worked in Corrections.
Unfortunately, Corrections could be described as a basket case, if that wasn't such a grotesque libel on baskets.
-
Strangely enough, the loudest advocates for Sharia law in NZ wouldn't touch the Quran with a bargepole.
-
Meanwhile, perhaps we can take some comfort that there's actually any money to build gallows and ducking stools. Well, at least that's the case for anyone who is on speaking terms with reality -- which I'm less than certain Cullen and English are at the moment.
-
Oh, you clearly missed the Herald's 'Your Views' around the time of the South Auckland killings. That got really mediaeval, really quickly.
My producer was flicking through it and made a crack about sharia law. And the next page he clicked actually had someone proposing that thieves should have their hands cut off ...
The latent violence amongst upstanding citizens can be quite a thing to behold.
Did the Herald make a story out of that, though: 'Public calls for a hands off approach to theft' ... or some such pun headline ?
Is anyone else a little uneasy with Stuff turning the comments made in reaction to one of its stories into a story in itself? As far as I'm aware, outside of some of the comments, there hasn't been a recent call for the reintroduction of the death penalty.
-
As far as I'm aware, outside of some of the comments, there hasn't been a recent call for the reintroduction of the death penalty.
One of the topics that regularly comes up on the message boards of a site I frequent is reintroduction of capital punishment, and it does actually seem to be something that's got at least a passing level of support. I'm not sure how much of it is gut reaction and how much of it is considered, but there are a lot of people who weigh in on the discussions who don't think it in the least bit unreasonable to kill innocent people if it ensures that "scum" don't get a chance to reoffend. Some of them even support capital punishment for rape, not just murder, though that is a very small minority.
-
BTW, folks, am I the only person who thinks both National and Labour need to borrow David Cameron's spine :
I know it’s your money. I know you want some of it back. And I want to give it to you. It’s one of the reasons I’m doing this job. But we will only cut taxes once it’s responsible to do so once we’ve made government live within its means. The test of whether we’re ready for government is not whether we can come up with exciting shadow budgets. It is whether we have the grit and determination to impose discipline on government spending, keep our nerve and say “no” - even in the teeth of hostility and protest. That is the responsible party we are and that is the responsible government I will lead.
To be honest, all I've heard from Cullen and English today is the same old delusional bullshit that you can cut taxes, and still somehow increase spending while being coy about how you're going to pay for it. Sorry, folks, I think Cullen has got to be in the gun every bit as much as English.
-
Faaark... "Meanwhile, perhaps we can take some comfort that there ISN'T actually any money to build gallows and ducking stools. (Even if there was any serious desire to reintroduce the death penalty.) Well, at least that's the case for anyone who is on speaking terms with reality -- which I'm less than certain Cullen and English are at the moment."
-
Craig, yes Cullen's over-reached. But at least he's admitted that he's over-reached. English is still spouting off as though nothing's changed.
-
Unfortunately, Corrections could be described as a basket case, if that wasn't such a grotesque libel on baskets.
Meh. Corrections has to be near the top of the list of 'government departments that the public is least well-informed about'. Starting with parole, but correctional facilities not far behind.
Some of the stories bitching about the transfer of prisoners from Hawkes Bay to Otago, which was required by law to stop the prisoners getting sick, annoyed the hell out of me.
-
So anyway, I for one am glad that the NZ Herald is making good use of the internet and all it offers for the election campaign.
Would you vote for a man who seemed to have a penchant for little old ladies?
-
At least the little ones will be safe and that's what really matters, eh?
</irony> -
I'd love someone to ask National (hopefully they will at some point) who they had advising on this no parole malarky. Because corrections and law-type folks don't seem that impressed:
Corrections Association president Beven Hanlon, who represents prison guards, said the policy would make prisons unmanageably violent because inmates would no longer have the possibility of release.
"As soon as you take that glimmer of hope away, what else can you do to them? You create animals."
Kris Gledhill, of Auckland University's law faculty, said the policy seemed to target a group of people unlikely to be released anyway.
Any concerns about the rigour of the parole process should be dealt with by training the Parole Board and ensuring it had enough information in front of it.
Keeping prisoners in jail when they were old and infirm was unnecessary, hugely costly, and inhumane. "It's just not right."
-
Now that story is a valid news story about the reaction to National's policy announcment. That was on page two of the Dom Post today. The contrived "death sentence" story - that was on page one.
-
Now that story is a valid news story about the reaction to National's policy announcment. That was on page two of the Dom Post today.
No. The Story began:
National says the "two strikes" plan, which denies parole to anyone convicted of two violent offences, would put an extra 572 offenders in prison over the next three years and would require a new prison to be built at a cost of $314 million, plus $43 million a year to keep them there.
The story is therefore pointless.
National's policy does not deny parole to anyone convicted of two violent offences. Not even close.
Such a gross inaccuracy means that pretty much any comment in the article must be taken with a grain of salt - were they commenting on the actual policy, or the reporter's gross misunderstanding?
Moreover, it is a parole policy, so it cannot put extra offenders in prison, but only keep prisoners already there, there for longer. And because it will only apply to (some) sentences of 5+ years passed after it comes into effect, people sentenced to which would only be eligible for parole at two-third under recent changes to parole laws, the total increase in the prison muster over the next 3 years must be zero.
Far from being a valid news story, it was so innaccurate and ill-informed that if there isn't a press council complaint the DomPost can consider itself very lucky!
-
Corrections Association president Beven Hanlon, who represents prison guards, said the policy would make prisons unmanageably violent because inmates would no longer have the possibility of release.
"As soon as you take that glimmer of hope away, what else can you do to them? You create animals."
There is some truth to this - it can be illustrated by visiting first a prison unit proper, and then a remand unit.
The remand prisoners are not yet integrated into the rewards & punishment system that exists in prisons, have little to lose & are a lot more dangerous.
The difference is quite noticable. I don't recommend visiting a remand unit.
-
Fair comment Graeme - the "any two violent offences" skipped by me when I read it and it's not a great piece of detail journalism. It certainly should have said anyone sentenced to more than 5 years (it was 5, right?) in both cases for second violent offences.
But the comments still stand and given who they were from I would expect an understanding of the policy. They are the sort of discussion on the positives of parole that seems to be missing so far... -
BTW, folks, am I the only person who thinks both National and Labour need to borrow David Cameron's spine
While I don't believe he's gone as far as Mr Cameron, Mr Key has at least acknowledged the change in economic cricumstances and is claiming they've dialled back the tax cut package (although apparently the guidelines for the average earner are still similar??).
Some will argue it's semantic expectation setting but it's good to see he's at least got it top of mind. Interesting to see the full revenue impacts of their tax package and costing of promises - does anyone know if tomorrow's tax announcement will actually go as far as a full budget deficit forecast based on plans? Probably not I guess...
-
Craig, yes Cullen's over-reached. But at least he's admitted that he's over-reached.
Remains to be seen, Matthew. When Labour starts releasing policy, let's just hope for some tough questions about where the money is coming from. David Cunliffe managed to "reallocate" fifty million today in response to the pretty horrible report into cardiac care in Wellington, but I think we could be forgiven for being sceptical about how many times that can be pulled off.
I'm taking my party political hat off here, and being a hard-arsed fiscal conservative. From here on in, if any party wants to increase spending they better have a clear and bullshit-free explanation about how it's going to be paid for. AFAIC, both National and Labour are getting an F, and don't have a lot a time left to improve their grade.
-
Graeme:
"were they commenting on the actual policy, or the reporter's gross misunderstanding?
Kris Gledhill, of Auckland University's law faculty, said the policy seemed to target a group of people unlikely to be released anyway.
Well that comment seems pretty likely to be a reaction to the actual policy, as Gledhill understands it, rather than a reaction to a summary provided by the reporter.
But in any case, the aspect I was referring to as valid was the approach to what's newsworthy. A news article based on the reaction to National's policy of the sort of people canvassed in that story is... well, it's news . I was contrasting it in that sense with the page one story based on the reaction of some of the commentors in stuff's comments section. I feel the latter is dangerously close to the media saying something's now a public discussion because they say it's a public discussion.
-
A news article based on the reaction to National's policy of the sort of people canvassed in that story is... well, it's news .
For a less than glorious moment in media history, Britney Spears' twat -- and the utter train wreck it was attached to was the biggest quote unquote "news" story on Earth.
Either way, I think Graeme's point is entirely valid. The Dominion Post (like the rest of the Fairfax NZ group) voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the Press Council, whose principles include the following:
**1. Accuracy**
Publications (newspapers and magazines) should be guided at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance, and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission, or omission.2. Corrections
Where it is established that there has been published information that is materially incorrect then the publication should promptly correct the error giving the correction fair prominence. In some circumstances it will be appropriate to offer an apology and a right of reply to an affected person or persons.[...]
6. Comment and Fact
Publications should, as far as possible, make proper distinctions between reporting of facts and conjecture, passing of opinions and comment.7. Advocacy
A publication is entitled to adopt a forthright stance and advocate a position on any issue.[...]
9. Subterfuge
Editors should generally not sanction misrepresentation, deceit or subterfuge to obtain information for publication unless there is a clear case of public interest and the information cannot be obtained in any other way.10. Headlines and Captions
Headlines, sub-headings, and captions should accurately and fairly convey the substance of the report they are designed to cover.Of course, any newspaper is quite free to editorialise, or print adverse comment on, any party policy it chooses. That's a free press, like it or not. What they don't have any right to do is misrepresent policy, whether maliciously or through carelessness to their readers.
-
__Kris Gledhill, of Auckland University's law faculty, said the policy seemed to target a group of people unlikely to be released anyway.__
Well that comment seems pretty likely to be a reaction to the actual policy, as Gledhill understands it, rather than a reaction to a summary provided by the reporter.
It does, but given most of the application of the policy will still be people receiving finite sentences (and thus will be released), it's still not paticularly informed comment.
I was contrasting it in that sense with the page one story based on the reaction of some of the commentors in stuff's comments section. I feel the latter is dangerously close to the media saying something's now a public discussion because they say it's a public discussion.
Absolutely. I guess I was just a little miffed when I saw that DomPost article held up as good journalism ... I guess I'm of the view that neither was.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.